These reviews -- albeit both from Revolutionary sources -- make me want to go see the film:

Quote

None of the social networks in this film are attractive, and because of that, the whole movie paints a claustrophobically awful portrait of the self-created techno elite versus the old money white Protestant patriarchy

...

It is clear through the film that Zuckerberg created Facebook out of class resentment (a middle class Jew within the old wealth Protestant elite of Harvard) and that the social network that is the focus of the film is not the actual internet platform of Facebook. Rather, it is the whole socioeconomic network of the American class system, especially in terms of educational privilege and ranking and how those terms relate directly to economic status.

...

Zuckerberg is obsessed with ranking because he knows that class and ethnicity in America, especially within the elite old money patriarchy of the Ivy League (which largely represents the exclusionary economic foundation of America), will never allow him a place in its ranks. So Zuckerberg hacks his way into the very class that denies him access, and he creates his own “privileged domain” over which he presides like the victor assassin who took ownership of the kingdom.

The raving socialists are on the lookout for Social Darwinism, and miss the Wolfeian caste/status implications, but hit on an interesting point:

Quote

Fincher’s film gets its point across: Zuckerberg is smarter and more disciplined than the rest of us, and that is why he is the world’s youngest billionaire.

...

Eduardo is presented in a such a fashion that the betrayal seems almost justified; the portrayal reinforces the point that the brighter, successful elements naturally rise to the top.

...

The influx of billions in venture capital gave rise to various forms of “market populism” substituting a number of red herrings for the great social issues: e.g., the upstarts with computer skills vs. the wealthy stuffed-shirts, the young vs. the old, the hip vs. the boring, and so forth

Sounds like Moby-Dick or 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Nemo the "avenger" rails against the oppression of the little people, and in one memorable scene, defends an impoverished fisherman from a shark that is naturally born strong and vicious. Nemo is not necessarily a genius but is very talented with technology, and driven with manic intensity. He takes treasure from shipwrecks and uses it to fund revolutions worldwide on behalf of the "oppressed" against the naturally born stronger. In the end, he becomes paralyzed by rage and cannot react to natural disaster, hiding instead behind his technology, and we never hear what happens to him (but the logical Conseil, id-driven Ned Land, and obedient nerd Aronnax escape).

Ahab (probably the biggest influence on Nemo) chases endlessly a symbol of control and power over nature (a symbol for life itself, mortality and the frustration of having a god-like intellect in a mouse-like body/perspective; contrast this to Queequeeg, who is at home in his skin because he is a simple creature). He is competing for the wealth of whale oil harvest at first, but then it becomes a quest: prove himself master over life. At his end, we see that his fanaticism causes him to ignore the obvious, and be taken down by a relatively simple and predictable series of events.

Zuckerberg chases wealth but still cannot be WASP hierarchy because in part, They think differently from Zuckerberg and those of his origin, by two factors: one, middle class/enhanced shopowners; two, Semitic/Eurasian versus Western European. He wants to be what he cannot be, but since he cannot join, he will conquer it and if not buy his way in, at least give it a giant FUCK YOU by being made insanely wealthy.

Fascinating.

Quote

In America, class and race aren’t supposed to mix. If you’re brown, you’re automatically deemed “worthy of sympathy and pity” or at least marked as “other” and not being part of the old money club. But the movie quietly undoes that skewed perception. It is the fact that Eduardo is also a part of an established old money patriarchy (the Brazilian kind) that he can fund Zuckerberg’s venture, that he gets into an exclusive Final Club, and that he endorses the “old school” means of supporting the Facebook venture rather than diving into the new economy represented by Sean Parker.

And to cap it off, the grim reality that Facebook wasn't so exceptional; it's that others are just so incompetent it rose:

Quote

Mark Zuckerberg—a relatively privileged young man—came to Harvard University from one of the East Coast’s most prestigious prep schools with significant computer skills. At Harvard he gained notoriety by hacking into the university’s computer system, and then enlisted a number of friends in an effort to create a social networking site modeled on several preexisting sites (Friendster, My Space, etc.), with a few improvements and the elite branding that comes with origins in an Ivy League school.

And in all of it, the postmodern theme of the tail wagging the dog -- our ability to symbolically present reality creating a false or partial reality, Nietzsche's "knowing" and Baudrillard's "simulacra," which leads us to become oblivious to actual reality.

Quote

We learned in Zodiac that Fincher is fastidious about recreating information delivery systems. In Zodiac it was typewriters, newspapers, postal mail, telefaxes, and pay phones. In The Social Network, it’s laptops, cellphones and computer monitors.

And through it all no one mentioning the obvious: if you make the proles equal, their tastes will dominate, and you will promote peasants to kings with a moral need for revenge. How satisfyingly oblivious.

And to cap it off, the grim reality that Facebook wasn't so exceptional; it's that others are just so incompetent it rose

And through it all no one mentioning the obvious: if you make the proles equal, their tastes will dominate, and you will promote peasants to kings with a moral need for revenge.

A mixture of those two statements are the explanation for Facebook's popularity, and the reason(s) I have no interest in seeing this movie. For all of the reconstituting and rebranding that defines the internet and diminishes its efficacy, the widely held belief that a poorly rendered message board is the cutting edge in communication explains how little intrinsic value the internet has to the average person.

Being in your room and chatting with others in a "social network" is a sin against the pagan gods and it has a cause. Earlier, in the 80s for example, there were clubs and bars (at least here in greece) where certain people met. So you knew what guys an chicks you would meet and you went to their lair if you wanted to do something, now it is completely random, one friend of mine said she found someone via facebook and she is in love. OK I respect that but I also think it is fake. If I rely on a PC to find a girl I am done for. The PCs have changed role from means to end. As with all technology in our final rome-sque failure.

If you think it is fake why do you respect it? You should say what you really mean instead of hiding behind polite wording. You may offend some wimpy bitches but it's the only way to be respected.

Probably you are right, "respect" was unfortunate. Rephrase: I don't want to communicate my opinion to her because I don't want to start a dead end conversation with predetermined failure because she wouldn't (or couldn't) understand. Add to that, I don't want to stop being friends. If I had a big social circle, I could afford to NOT tolerate. Got me? It may sound Christian/Democratic tolerant/polite shit, but if I expressed my beliefs to all the people I see (not in varying degrees but full force) I would be alone or with one/two friends.